Attachment J.3 - QASP.pdf

Attachment J.3 - QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

Solicitation No. N0017825R4500

1. PURPOSE

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government-developed and applied document used to make sure the systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of this contract. The intent is to ensure that the Contractor performs in accordance with the performance objectives and the Government receives the quality of services called for in the contract.

The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to monitor performance and to identify the required documentation and the resources to be employed. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the Contractor is meeting the performance standards/quality levels identified in the SOW and the Contractor’s Quality Control Plan (QCP), and to ensure that the

Government pays only for the level of services required/received.

This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of Government personnel involved in the evaluation of the quality of Contractor performance, identifies the performance objectives, and defines the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the Contractor’s performance. The QASP also describes quality assurance documentation requirements and describes the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

2. AUTHORITY

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Contract Section E – Inspection and

Acceptance which provides for inspections and acceptance of the services and deliverables called for in service contracts to be executed by the Contracting Officer or a duly authorized representative.

3. SCOPE

The SOW structures the acquisition around "what" services or quality level is required, as opposed to "how" the Contractor should perform the work (i.e., results, not compliance). This QASP will define the performance management approach taken to monitor and manage the Contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the

SOW are achieved. Performance management rests on developing a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance assessment. The ability to make decisions based on the analysis of performance data is the cornerstone of performance management, this analysis yields information that indicates whether expected outcomes for the project are being achieved by the Contractor.

Performance management represents a significant shift from the more traditional Quality

Assurance (QA) concepts in several ways. Performance management focuses on assessing whether outcomes are being achieved and to what extent. This approach migrates away from scrutiny of compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome. The only exceptions to process reviews are those required by law (federal, state, and local) and compelling business situations, such as safety and health. A "results" focus provides the Contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the Task Order as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met.

The Contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The Contractor measures that quality through the Contractor’s own Quality Control Program (QCP). Quality control is work output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this contract regardless of whether the work is performed by Contractor employees or by Sub-contractors. The Contractor’s

QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the SOW. The

Contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated Government representative. This QASP enables the Government to take advantage of the Contractor’s QCP.

The Government will assess performance using the Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS) to determine how the Contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) assesses a

Contractor’s performance, both positive and negative, and provides a record on a given contract during a specified period of time. More information pertaining to CPARS can be found at:

https://www.cpars.gov. Each assessment will be based on objective data (or measurable, subjective data when objective data is not available) supportable by program and contract management data. CPAR performance expectations will be addressed in the Government and

Contractor’s initial post-award meeting.

Potential sources of data may include the following:

− Status and progress reviews;

− Production and management reviews;

− Systems engineering and other technical progress reviews;

− Technical interchange meetings;

− Fleet and sponsor feedback/comments and satisfaction ratings;

− Physical and functional configuration audits;

− Quality reviews and quality assurance evaluations;

− Functional performance evaluations;

− Subcontract Reports;

− Management and engineering process reviews (e.g. risk management, requirements management, etc.);

− Cost performance reports and other cost and schedule metrics;

− Other program measures and metrics such as:

• Measures of progress and status of resources;

• Measures of deliverable timeliness and accuracy;

• Measures of product quality and process performance.

A preliminary QASP evaluation/rating will be performed according to the schedule as noted below. The purpose of this review is to determine whether the Contractor is performing at least at a "Satisfactory" level for each major element assessed using Table 1. Further, the formal CPARS ratings are used as reference material by others in source selection.

4. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) – An individual duly appointed with the authority to enter into contracts and make related determination and findings on behalf of the Government. PCOs are designated via a written warrant, which sets forth limitations of their respective authority. The

PCO ensures performance of all necessary actions for effective contract administration ensures compliance with the terms of the contract and safeguards the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. It is the PCO that ensures the Contractor receives impartial, fair and equitable treatment under the contract. The PCO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the acceptability of the Contractor’s performance. The PCO for this contract is identified in Section G.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as their authorized representative to assist in technical administration. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment which is a formal Attachment to the contract. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and assures proper

Government surveillance of the Contractor’s technical performance. The COR provides QASP reports to the PCO. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf. Any changes that the Contractor deems may affect contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the PCO for action.

Contract Specialist (CS) – An individual assigned by the PCO to provide daily administration of the Contract. The Contract Specialist provides input to the PCO and the COR as to the quality of performance for areas addressed in this QASP.

Subject Matter Expert (SME) – Individuals who may be assigned by the COR to perform limited technical oversight of specific projects, work areas, or Technical Instructions issued under the contract. A SME provides input to the COR as to the quality of technical performance for their respective area(s) of expertise. A SME cannot, in any manner, alter the scope of the contract, make commitments or authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf.

5. SCHEDULE

The initial QASP evaluation will be finalized no later than the end of month eight (8) of the initial year of performance. QASP evaluations for the additional years shall follow the same schedule described in this section. In order to accomplish this, the following schedule applies:

Contractor Written Self-Assessment is due to the PCO and the COR no later than the end of month seven (7) of the period of performance based on the first six (6) months of support for the base period and each twelve (12) month period thereafter. Failure of the Contractor to make a timely delivery will be viewed as the Contractor’s overall inability to comply with Contract schedules.

COR Written Assessment is due to the PCO no later than the end of week two (2) of month eight

(8) of the Period of Performance.

PCO Performance Rating will be provided at the end of month eight (8) of the Period of

Performance. The PCO will review the Contractor Self-Assessment and the COR Written

Assessment, determine an overall performance rating for the period, and provide a copy to the

Contractor.

Interim Evaluations – The COR can provide feedback to the PCO at any time during the Period of

Performance. The PCO will provide this feedback to the Contractor upon receiving it, if the feedback indicates that the Contractor is not meeting the acceptable performance standards as defined herein.

6. IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY

LEVELS

The overall performance ratings and standards are included in Table 1 “Task Performance

Evaluation Criteria and Standards for each Major Performance Element.” If the Contractor meets the required service or performance level, the Contractor will receive positive preliminary QASP and CPARS ratings. If the Contractor fails to meet the required performance level, the result will be negative QASP and CPARS ratings.

7. METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

SURVEILLANCE TECHNIQUES

In an effort to minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods shall be used by the Government to evaluate Contractor performance when appropriate. The COR will use the following methods of surveillance:

- Random monitoring

- 100% Inspection

- Periodic Inspection

- Customer Feedback

CUSTOMER FEEDBACK

The Contractor is expected to establish and maintain professional communication between its employees and customers. The primary objective of this communication is customer satisfaction.

Customer satisfaction is the most significant external indicator of the success and effectiveness of all services provided and can be measured through customer complaints.

Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must set forth clearly and in writing the detailed nature of the complaint, must be signed, and must be forwarded to the COR. The COR will accept those customer complaints, investigate and work with the PCO and Contractor to resolve the issue.

8. QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards are expressed in Table 1.

9. MONITORING SYSTEM

The Government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR, in conjunction with the PCO, will be reported using the methodology described herein. QASP evaluations will be done as input to

Option Exercise determinations. Formal CPARS evaluations shall be conducted on an annual basis.

Table 1 – Task Performance Evaluation Criteria and Standards

Element 1 – Quality of Product or Service

Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Exceptional

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem for which the

Contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Deliverables are typically not well researched and contain many technical inaccuracies.

Rework is frequently required.

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the

Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The

Contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective, or were not fully implemented.

Deliverables are occasionally not well researched and contain some technical inaccuracies.

Rework is occasionally required.

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the

Contractor appear, or were, satisfactory.

Deliverables received are well researched, complete and technically accurate. No more than one revision is typically needed to accept the item.

Other deliverables meet all Contract requirements.

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the

Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

received are well researched, complete and technically accurate.

Other deliverables meet all Contract requirements.

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the

Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.

received are always well researched, complete and technically accurate. They frequently exceed technical expectations.

Element 1 – Quality of Product or Service

Rework is not required. Other deliverables typically exceed all Contract requirements.

Element 2 – Cost: Control & Reporting

Invoicing is not accurate or submitted in a timely manner.

Sub-Contractor invoices are rarely paid in a timely manner.

Invoices are occasionally late or contain errors.

invoices are not paid in a timely manner. SB Sub-

Contractor invoices are not expedited.

Invoices are timely and invoices are paid in a timely manner. SB Sub-

Contractor invoices are expedited.

Invoices are timely and in a timely manner. SB Sub-

Contractor invoices are expedited.

Invoices are timely and accurate. All supporting detail is provided.

in a timely manner. SB Sub-

Contractor invoices are expedited.

Element 3 – Schedule & Timeliness

Frequently misses deadlines, or is slow or non-responsive to respond to

Government requests.

Occasionally misses deadlines, schedules or is slow or occasionally non-responsive to respond to

Government requests.

Routinely meets deadlines and schedules, quickly responds to Government requests.

Routinely meets deadlines and schedules and occasionally delivers early and responds immediately to

Government requests.

Routinely delivers ahead of deadlines, schedules, and responds immediately to

Government requests

Element 4a – Management/Business Relations: Problem Resolution

Problems are unresolved, repetitive, or take excessive

Government effort to resolve.

Problems are generally resolved but take unusual

Government effort to resolve

Problems are resolved quickly with minimal

Government involvement.

Problems occur infrequently and are generally resolved quickly with minimal

Problems are non-existent or the Contractor takes corrective action without or take an excessive amount of time to resolve.

Government involvement.

Government involvement.

Element 4b – Management/Business Relations: Responsiveness

Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Exceptional

Unresponsive to

Government requests and concerns.

Management is occasionally unresponsive to

Government requests and concerns.

Management is responsive to

Government requests and concerns.

Management is responsive to requests and concerns and occasionally proactive in anticipating concerns.

Management takes proactive approach in dealing with

Government representatives and anticipates concerns.

Element 4c – Management/Business Relations: Communication

Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Exceptional

Fails to communicate with

Government in an effective and timely manner.

Occasionally fails to communicate with

Government in an effective and timely manner.

Routinely communicates with Government in an effective and timely manner.

Routinely communicates with

Government in an effective and timely manner and is frequently proactive in managing communications.

Takes proactive approach such that communications are almost always clear, effective and timely.

Element 5a – Regulatory Compliance

Does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem for which the

Contractor’s corrective actions

Does not meet some contractual requirements.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the

Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The

Meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the

Contractor appear, or were, satisfactory.

Meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the

Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor

Meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the

Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor appear or were ineffective.

Contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective, or were not fully implemented.

problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.

Element 5b – Combatting Trafficking in Persons (Ref. FAR 52.222-50)

Unsatisfactory N/A Satisfactory N/A N/A

The Contractor has not informed the

Contracting

Officer and the agency Inspector

General of any credible information it has received that alleges a

Contractor employee, Sub-

Contractor, Sub-

Contractor employee, or their agent has engaged in conduct that violates the policy.

The Contractor has informed the

Contracting

Officer and the agency Inspector

General 100% of the time of any credible information it has received that alleges a

Contractor employee, Sub-

Contractor, Sub-

Contractor employee, or their agent has engaged in conduct that violates the policy.

100% compliance of maintaining a compliance plan

(including annual certification) as required by paragraph (h) of the clause.

Element 6 – Staffing

Provides marginally qualified or

Provides marginally qualified personnel.

Provides qualified personnel.

Provides a mix of qualified and highly qualified personnel.

Provides highly qualified unqualified

Lapses in coverage occur regularly.

Lapses in coverable occur more than occasionally.

Lapses in coverage occur occasionally and are successfully managed by the

Contractor with minimal impact on timeliness or quality.

New/and or substitute resumes submitted IAW contract requirements.

Personnel work products fully consistent with resume qualifications.

Lapses in coverage are rare and are successfully managed by the

Contractor with no impact on timeliness or resumes submitted IAW contract requirements.

Personnel work products fully consistent with resume

Qualifications.

Lapses in coverage are non-existent; no impact on timeliness or resumes submitted IAW contract requirements.

Personnel work products fully consistent with resume qualifications.

Note: Vacancies in which authorization to fill has been provided, must be filled within 90 days of authorization. Each instance of vacancies remaining vacant for greater than 90 days will be evaluated by the COR for the cause. If the cause is attributed to Contractor management practices, this could be used to evaluate Element 6 at less than “Satisfactory.”